Taking the U.N. seriously
http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com |
George W. Bush, in his September 12 speech, like Daniel Patrick
Moynihan in his years as ambassador, did the United Nations the favor
of taking it seriously. "We created the United Nations Security Council,
so that, unlike the League of Nations, our deliberations would be more
than talk," Bush said. Today the "standards of human dignity shared by
all" and the "system of security defended by all" are "challenged" by an
"outlaw regime," "exactly the kind of aggressive threat the United
Nations was born to confront." Bush then recounted how Iraq's
aggression against Kuwait was condemned by the U.N. "To suspend
hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's
dictator
accepted a
series of
commitments."

Then, in 13
fact-filled
paragraphs,
Bush
described
how
Saddam
Hussein had
failed to
keep those
commitments.
His words
are
reminiscent
of Franklin
Roosevelt's recital of Japan's perfidy on Dec. 8, 1941- repetitive, even a
bit boring. But the point is made. We are talking about evil people doing
evil things.

Bush has been accused by critics in Europe and the United States of
"unilateralism"-America acting on its own in disregard of "multilateral"
institutions. Here is his answer: "We want the resolutions of the world's
most important multilateral body to be enforced. And right now those
resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by Iraq." The burden of proof
is not on the United States, seeking action. It is on those who counsel
inaction. "The Security Council resolutions will be enforced-the just
demands of peace and security will be met-or action will be
unavoidable."

In other words, if the U.N. doesn't act, the United States will. And the
U.N. will be shown to be as weak and irrelevant as the League of
Nations. Or as Tony Blair told the antiwar Trades Union Congress in
Blackpool, England, September 10, "the U.N. must be the way to
resolve the threat from Saddam, not avoid it." You get multilateralism by
threatening unilateralism.

China's veto. The votes that matter are those of the five permanent
members of the Security Council. Britain is with us. France's and
Russia's interests in Iraq are mercenary; they want to make money
there. If they're convinced we'll act-and no one doubts the United States
can defeat Saddam Hussein militarily-they'll want to be on our side.
China has little interest in Iraq but does have a serious diplomatic asset
in its Security Council veto. A lone veto followed by unilateral U.S.
action would devalue that asset. China is unlikely to want that. You get
U.N. action by threatening to take action without the U.N.

Bush's critics in the United States decry the "confusion" sown by
conflicting statements from administration officials, with Colin Powell
talking hopefully about U.N. inspections in Iraq and Donald Rumsfeld
dismissing any inspections as useless. But that "confusion" has
enabled Bush to maintain the threat of unilateral action while seeking
multilateral approval in earnest. It's obviously at least marginally helpful
to get allies and multilateral approval. But it's more important to make it
clear you will act in any case.

Similarly, Bush used the language of human dignity and freedom to
make his case. Rhetoric in international organizations tends to depict
the United States as callous and greedy and heedless of human
rights-look at the recent summit in Johannesburg, South Africa. Bush
turned the tables by describing the vicious acts of the Iraqi regime. He
called for democracy and human rights in the Muslim world. "The people
of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic
Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout
the Muslim world."

That, of course, is the last thing the leaders of most
Arab states want, including some who pose as our friends (Saudi
delegates winced at Bush's words). But they can hardly say so in
public. America is taking the high ground and calling on the United
Nations to join us.

Next the president will call on Congress. Some Democrats are talking
about weeks of debates or delaying a vote until next year. Bush isn't
likely to let them get away with that. Many politicians ask what is new.
But this is not a legal case in which we are bound to precedent absent
new evidence. Bush's point is that Saddam Hussein has been
dangerous already for too long. We did not go into Iraq in the winter
because we were busy in Afghanistan, in the spring because of
shortages of precision weapons, in the summer because it was too hot.
Now it is fall.